NY Times again repeated falsehood that Casey was denied speaking slot at '92 Dem convention "because of his anti-abortion views"
SUMMARY: The New York Times asserted that Robert P. Casey Sr., "then Pennsylvania's governor, was blocked from speaking at the 1992 convention because of his anti-abortion views." But other Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then, so Casey's opposition to abortion rights could not have been the sole reason he was not given a speaking role.
In an August 24 New York Times article, reporter Michael Powell wrote that "Sen. Barack Obama has invited Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, an abortion-rights opponent to give a convention speech." Powell then falsely asserted: "Mr. Casey's father, then Pennsylvania's governor, was blocked from speaking at the 1992 convention because of his anti-abortion views." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, other Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then, so Casey's opposition to abortion rights could not have been the sole reason he was not given a speaking role. Further, the Times itself reported in an August 1, 1996, article that White House officials "have always said that had [Casey] not declined to endorse Mr. [Bill] Clinton in 1992, he would have been allowed to speak to the convention." Michael Crowley of The New Republic similarly reported in 1996: "According to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots, Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket."
Times reporter John Broder also repeated the falsehood in an August 7 article, writing: "Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies."
The truth is that Casey was not denied a speaking spot because of his "pro-life views" per se. He was denied because he specifically wanted to deliver a speech that defended the dignity of the unborn and opposed the Democratic Party's stance on abortion.
Such a speech would have thrown any image of "unity" at the convention into chaos, so Casey was denied. It's that simple. Read for yourself.
"The Truth About Gov. Bob Casey and the 1992 DNC Convention"
MM is trying to revise history. Not cool, IMHO.
Shoes, your accusation would be more convincing if you didn't show the exact opposite of what you're claiming.
Fail. Failure. Failed.
The first line of the link that Shoes posted says:
*SPECIAL REPORT*
Any time I see a word, phrase or paragraph inside two asterisks the first thing I think of is that it's got to be true.
I mean think about it. How could it not be true if it's got an asterisk before and after it?
You're right, WK. This same very official-looking web page also ends with something along the lines of "and now you know the truth about...", which seems very hard to argue with. I don't think it's legal for a website opinion piece to state that it has posted "the truth" unless it's been verified by government agencies.
This link has been provided more than once by Shoes, and I believe Barney Fife posted it as well, meaning it's been confirmed by more than one source.
Sure , it's been laughed off of this site every time, but that's nothing that can't be overcome with a little repetition and some more asterisks.
Of your you are right shoes, but remember, any dem that does not toe the party line is an enemy. Defending the unborn is not ok on the left, and anyone who suggests it must be stopped. It is really that simple.
Nonsense, all unborn gay welks have our support.
I can tell the strain of your support is just ripping you to pieces. Rave on sweetie.
Of your you are right shoes, (POV)
Are you two actually able to communicate with each other using this gibberish ?
I bow to few in the gibberish department, thank you.
POV is just a natural born tallent. I've had to memorize most of mine.
!~{)>
Fine fine fine.
I did lose track of Shoes. ;-P
ps. The "good question" was meant for Apple.
However Nerzog also makes a good point. Perhaps if the GOP were in Nebraska and Hagel were governor it might be more of a fair comparison.
However it would be interesting to see him speak.
Shoes,
The tactic used by our friends here is very familiar. They rarely, if ever, argue the points made. They mostly attack the messenger and then pat each other on the back.
We've been down this road before and the conclusion they will not admit, (including MMFA,) is that Casey felt he was denied a slot on the podium at that convention due to his outspoken views on abortion.
The Clintonistas later on tried to rewrite history and say it was because Casey hadn't endorsed Bill for Prez. And we know how well their track record on providing accurate and unbiased information.
So at best we have a difference of opinion between Casey and the Clintons. Only if you swallow whole [no pun intended] Bill's story and disregard totally Casey's story can you say there is any misinformation.
Even if you believe Casey's version of it, there is still misinformation. He would have been denied a spot because of his plans to gave a speech focusing on abortion, not because he simply opposed abortion. It's a difference between discriminating based on views (which is not acceptable) vs. discriminating based on actions (which most certainly is acceptable).
Barney, you're an idiot. Your condescending insults about posters here not addressing arguments is hilarious.
This has been explained and dumbed down to the point where a fetus or you could understand it You're only making a fool of yourself by simultaneously showing that you're still having trouble with the basic premise, and hurling your little troll darts at those who are sveral steps ahead of you.
The fact that you can't mention Bill Clinton without making some puerile connection to swallowing probably tells us more about your own personal issues than you ever intended it to.
They rarely, if ever, argue the points made. They mostly attack the messenger and then pat each other on the back.
AA, YOU are well versed in NOT arguing the facts!
NO ONE is EVER allowed to speak against the party platform, PERIOD! Arnold Schwarzenegger is a pro-life Republican who NEVER is allowed to voice his pro-choice views at the Republican convention! It's against the Republican party platform and you damn well know that!
We've been down this road before and the conclusion they will not admit, (including MMFA,) is that Casey felt he was denied a slot on the podium at that convention due to his outspoken views on abortion.
Funny, WE have been down this road several times and yet you still can't or choose not to comprehend that a party platform is a party's platform. NO ONE is allowed to speak AGAINST a party's platform.
The Clintonistas later on tried to rewrite history and say it was because Casey hadn't endorsed Bill for Prez. And we know how well their track record on providing accurate and unbiased information.
NO ONE is allowed a prime time speaking spot at the Democratic convention UNLESS they have endorsed the party's nominee! The Clinton's didn't have to make up sh*t, THAT is a fact!
So at best we have a difference of opinion between Casey and the Clintons. Only if you swallow whole [no pun intended] Bill's story and disregard totally Casey's story can you say there is any misinformation.
We don't have a difference of opinion, we have someone, YOU, who doesn't deal in reality OR facts!
Watch for it. No lie is to big nor too outrageous for these pricks.
Nerzog,
I just have to laugh when you make up something outlandish like this and then assign it to Republicans so you can hurl insults.
There is plenty of real world stuff to discuss, no need to make stuff up. Let MMFA do that for you. ;-)
"I just have to laugh when you make up something outlandish like this and then assign it to Republicans so you can hurl insults."
Did you hear that Dick Morris claimed that Iraq invited us into their country? If that lie isn't too big or outrageous to be forwarded, what the hell is?
I'm sorry, my former governor himself felt strongly that he was denied a speaking opportunity because of his pro-life stance. Yes, other pro-life candidates did speak, but none of them wanted abortion to be a focus.
Media Matters can't be on the money 100% of the time. Is this relevant? I'm not sure, but the truth is that Casey himself felt that way, and that sort of defines the argument, doesn't it?
Look around the party...it's still not easy being a pro-life Democrat.
I think it does matter more than a whit. Casey was passionate about his pro-life stance.
If it was a matter of what he was going to say instead of what he believed, and what he was going to say was a result of what he believed, and subsequently he was not allowed to speak...well it looks to me like the sum of the equation was his views on abortion barred him from speaking at the convention.
In regards to the other response, the DNC has never been a love-fest for platform unity. The 1992 convention defined pro-life Democrats' place in the party from the time forward, for even if there were pro-life speakers, none of them were as influential as Casey was/is. Look how his son suborns his own pro-life ideology for the sake of shalom bayis in the Democratic party.
It doesn't hurt us to be intellectually honest here. Casey wasn't allowed to speak because he was going to speak on abortion in a manner contrary to the platform, prompted by his beliefs on the subject. Ergo, he was denied because of his beliefs. We're really parsing words for the sake of an argument, one that hardly matters.
When a party creates a platform, it is designed to show what the party's plans for the country and what the party stands for. The Democratic party was pro-choice, therefore they could allow pro-life speakers as long as they didn't go against the party's platform and speak out against abortion.
Casey choose not to play ball. He hated Bill Clinton, thought he was immoral and tried to push HIS agenda, against the party platform and rules. THAT is why he was denied and the fact that their were other pro-life speakers proves that.
we have more contemporary problems to deal with than 1992. Just read today the headlines it is very possible the US is losing the military war in Afghanistan. Point of my post is that the NY Times should let the history books tell that story and concentrate on hews we can use. Hannity last night called the Democrats convention a " coronation ". Now that is news i can use. We got McCain walking around out there forgetting things
here is the full text with the source
By JASON STRAZIUSO,
APposted: 5 HOURS 41 MINUTES AGOcomments: 880PrintSharefiled under: World NewsText SizeAAAKABUL, Afghanistan (Aug. 24) -- Taliban insurgents once derided as a ragtag rabble unable to match U.S. troops have transformed into a fighting force — one advanced enough to mount massive conventional attacks and claim American lives at a record pace.The U.S. military suffered its 101st death of the year in Afghanistan last week when Sgt. 1st Class David J. Todd Jr., a 36-year-old from Marrero, La., died of gunfire wounds while helping train Afghan police in the northwest. The total number of U.S. dead last year — 111 — was a record itself and is likely to be surpassed.Is this the same "Liberal Media" that bombarded us with months of wall to wall coverage over Clinton's BJ lie? The Bush administration made up stuff to drag us into an unnecessary war and used the Justice Department as a political arm... and the News Media sniffs and looks the other way? Can this really be happening? Are these overpaid talking heads incompetent, corrupt or just lazy?
i would vote for corrupt, Sold their professionalism for $$$$$$ and staff memo's .
In other relevant news, General Francisco Franco is still dead.
Randy